Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Villas at Hidden Lakes Condominiums Ass'n v. Geupel Construction Co., 847 P.2d 117.

28 citing documents.

Arete v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Arete v. Nguyen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Co., Inc., Nguyen first argues Cailloutte’s affidavit lacked sufficient foundation to be admissible, and therefore, could not be considered to prove damages.
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ironwood Commons Cmty. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Randall 439 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ironwood Commons Cmty. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Randall 439 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Co ., , 76, , 121 (App. 1992) ("Under Arizona law, a recorded document stating its terms and purpose imparts constructive notice.").
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
M2 Real Solutions v. Perry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
M2 Real Solutions v. Perry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
602; (affidavit of moving party can support summary judgment by stating facts that would be admissible evidence if the affiant has personal knowledge of those facts and is competent to testify about the matters in the affidavit).
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Manicom v. Citimortgage, Inc. 336 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Meritage v. Bingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Distinguished Meritage v. Bingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., (finding, unlike this case, that affidavit offered to support admissibility of attached documents did “not lay a foundation for either the admission in evidence of the exhibits or the admission of his conclusions based on the exhibits”).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen 292 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen 292 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co., , (holding that inadmissible hearsay statements were insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment).
Rand v. Porsche Financial Services 167 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Rand v. Porsche Financial Services 167 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov 165 P.3d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov 165 P.3d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Co., Inc., , ("Courts have regularly imposed a reasonableness standard on rules and regulations adopted by condominium homeowners’ associations.”) (collecting cases).
FLYING DIAMOND AIRPACK, LLC v. Meienberg 156 P.3d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
FLYING DIAMOND AIRPACK, LLC v. Meienberg 156 P.3d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Kings Hill counters that the failure to resubmit the altered amendment to the unit owners for approval was an oversight and that such a mistake should not invalidate the entire amendment, -77 , -22 (App.1992)
State v. Johnson 911 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Johnson 911 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Villas at Hidden Lakes Condominiums Assoc’n v. Geupel Construction Co., Inc., -82 , -27 (App.1992).